- tion. The features of classical Greek architecture, which
with certain variations subsequently became Roman, are familiar to all. A Hellenic city of the best period was a chaste arrangement in white marble, in which the simplicity of the straight line was applied to define the form of all public buildings. Rows of accurately proportioned pillars, supporting a continuous entablature, invested both edifices and open spaces, and formed sheltered colonnades which were a defence against extremes of weather at all seasons. The architectural conception originated at some time far back when timber was the only material used for construction. Geometrical curves were rarely if ever seen, except in fluted columns, but the diversity of form to be found in the undulating lines of nature was profusely represented by foliaceous capitals, and in pediments, friezes, and metopes sculptured with the various figures of animal life. The Byzantine Greeks, however, completely reversed the conceptions of their ancestors, and abandoned the purity of classical style. Interest in form was gradually lost along with the capacity to execute it; and the taste of the age found its refuge in an overwhelming attachment to diversity and brightness of colour. To satisfy this craving recourse was had to variegated marbles, of which lavish use was made, for pillars in the mass, and in thin slabs for mural decoration. For the latter purpose also every available space was invested with glaring mosaics, the gaudy hues of which compensated for the absence of grace and natural proportions in the gaunt figures with which they were crowded. But these methods were applicable only to interiors, whence the building itself came to be considered as merely a packing-*case into which was to be stuffed the wealth of meretricious adornment. Thus a temple, that is a church, became a
